As the months-long debate dragged on over the term “Israel-firsters,” I’ve wondered when someone on the left would actually stand up and directly condemn it as the anti-Semitic charge that it is. Spencer Ackerman, a national security reporter at Danger Room, is the first to do just that. His essay at Tablet today is sure to draw blowback from his fellow progressives, but it’s an honest and important piece that clearly took a lot of guts and integrity to write.
Read it in full, but here’s a key passage:
Throughout my career, I’ve been associated with the Jewish left—I was to the left of the New Republic staff when I worked there, moved on to Talking Points Memo, hosted my blog at Firedoglake for years, and so on. I’ve criticized the American Jewish right’s myopic, destructive, tribal conception of what it means to love Israel. But it doesn’t deserve to have its Americanness and patriotism questioned. By all means, get into it with people who interpret every disagreement Washington has with Tel Aviv as hostility to the Jewish state. But if you can’t do it without sounding like Pat Buchanan, who has nothing but antipathy and contempt for Jews, then you’ve lost the debate.
This is tiresome to point out. Many of the writers who are fond of the Israel-firster smear are—appropriately—very good at hearing and analyzing dog-whistles when they’re used to dehumanize Arabs and Muslims. I can’t read anyone’s mind or judge anyone’s intention, but by the sound of it these writers are sending out comparable dog-whistles about Jews.
I don’t agree with Spencer on the issues. Attacking Iran’s facilities – a last resort that should be avoided if possible – isn’t “insanity” if we get to the point where the only alternative is a nuclear Iran. And while I also support a peaceful, two-state solution, the barrier is a lack of stable, moderate Palestinian leadership, not Israeli “recalcitrance.” Years of Israel trading land for peace that never came makes that clear.
But disagreement is fine, even if the arguments get heated. This isn’t elementary school, we don’t have to be nice to each other all the time, and name-calling happens.
What’s not okay is mainstreaming anti-Semitic slurs and sending out dog-whistles to Jew-haters in an attempt to bolster your side, or turning a blind eye when your political allies do it. Spencer’s column is important because it draws a line on the left between acceptable discourse – which includes plenty of discourse that may be stupid or inaccurate – and vulgar anti-Semitic fallacies that should be repudiated by all respectable progressive thinkers and writers. Every once in awhile, these lines need to be drawn. Just like William F. Buckley cast out the Birchers, and conservatives sidelined Pat Buchanan, the left needs to drain its own fever swamps. Spencer’s column is a good start.
Caroline Glick's column today demands of American Jews that they be "israel firsters."Glick's demand isn't that unusual among hard-core right-wing Zionists. Apparently it's ok to BE an Israel-firster, but verboten for a critic to point one out when she hoves into view.
Yup. Do as I say Goy – not as I do. What's that old crazy racist stereotype about Jews being disloyal subversives, who undermine and abuse thier host Nations? Nah…that.s just Knaaazzzeee tralk….
Critics who bash "Zionism" per se are sending dog whistles even the humans can hear. And those called "Israeli-firsters" are not especially hard-line or Israeli-firstiesh or "Likudnik"–they happen to be Jews often enough who think that Iran poses a danger or that Turkey has its own agendas, or that Jerusalem does not require "de-Judaization" . Or disagree with Obama on same. & etc. n nTo begin with, Carolyn didn't say anything like what your pancake flat meaning mashing vulgarization claims if I've ocated the column that is the source of this–it's the obverse. n nPat Buchanizing her thought and pounding it into paleoconservative biases misses the thrust of her critique of the ambiguity of American Jewish support for Israel and the crisis of the Disapora Jew. n nFar from advocating that American Jews should be "Israel-firsters" and conveniently confirming everything the anti-Zionist meme machine has been hating on Israel's supporters–she is analyzing the cognitive dissonance of defending a Jewish national particularism that inherently, according to Glick, subverts Western Jewish Diaspora's universalist comfort zone–and according to her, universalism is a defense mechanism against anti-Jewish prejudice. She is asking Jews in America not to have dual loyalties but to do the minimum to defend Israel against genocidal enemies although this will put them in the cross-hairs of anti-Zionist blind hostility. Even if this puts Jews in the role of dissidents in a society whose elites believe that American national interests are not put at risk by Iranian nukes. Note however that she is not calling for American Jews to respond by calling for American military attacks on Iran but to refuse to be cowed by anti-zionist and ant-Semitic charges of dual-loyalty when they stand up Israel's right not to be exterminated. n nThe ultimate subtext for Zionist critiques of Western Jewish assimilation (there is neither time nor space) calls not for "Israeli-firstism" or "dual-loyalty" but, if necessary, packing your bags. n nBut yeah Carolyn Glick is an "Israeli-firster." She BE an Israeli-firster. n nFor one thing she lives as an Israeli in Israel as a vigorous exponent of the nationalist Torah-true cause. n nSo yeah, Pretty firsti-esh.
I'm simply sick of MY country being looted, and dragged into war after war BY Israeli Firsters, is all.
ironic that a journalist, who relies on freedom of speech to do his job, would be trying to police the speech of others.
Nemesys, I am tired of people like you forcing my country to have to fight wars that we wouldn't have to if people like you would just shut up. n nBTW, did you see what Leon Panetta said on 60 minutes tonight? Is he an Israel Firster? (He is the child of Italian immigrants.) Yep…. n nOh, and do you have any idea what Iranian crazies with a nuke could do to the USA? They don't even need a delivery device if they can get some poor fool to go for the 64 Virginians and become the ultimate homicide bomber. n nRemember we are talking something the size and weight of a keg of beer. It really isn't that difficult to smuggle a keg of beer into a dorm, is it, and if Iran had nukes, we (USA) would be having problems…. n nOh and one other thing — there always was a 2 state solution — that is what Jordan was — why is no one asking Jordan to give up land for a Palestinian homeland????